TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Review of Second Draft of Development Ordinance Revision
DATE: April 15, 2002
On January 28, 2002, the Town Council reviewed the status of work and comments on a proposed second draft of a new Development Ordinance. The Council adopted a schedule of meetings and opportunities for presentation and discussion of the draft ordinance.
The first of three Council meetings that will be devoted to Council review and discussion of this document was held on March 18. Tonight is the second evening of the series. A schedule for which parts of the draft will be presented and discussed on which nights follows:
March 18 - Organization of Ordinance
- Relationship to Design Manual
- Review of Article 1: General Provisions
- Recommended Deferral of Article 2: Use Patterns
- Review of Article 3: Zoning Districts
[Note: Review of Article 3 was not completed on March 18, and will be continued tonight, beginning with Section 3.7]
April 15 - Continuation of Review of Article 3: Zoning Districts
- Review of Article 4: Procedures
- Review of Article 5: Design Standards
May 20 - Review of Article 6: Regulations for Particular Uses
- Review of Article 7: Nonconformities
- Review of Article 8: Administrative Mechanisms
- Review of Article 9: Legal Status
- Review of Appendix A: Definitions
- Review of Appendix B: Submittal Requirements
- Wrap-up
The Council has also directed that a Citizen Forum be paired with each of these Council discussions, so that citizens can have opportunities to learn more about the proposed ordinance and ask questions. Those forums are all at Town Hall, all starting at 7:00 pm. The first was on March 19. The next two are April 18, and May 21. In addition, Citizen Workshops have been scheduled to allow fuller examination of key features being proposed in the draft ordinance. The first of these was held on Saturday, March 9, focusing on infill and redevelopment issues for existing neighborhoods. The second is to be held from 9am-noon on Saturday, May 11, focusing on environmental issues.
Tonight’s format will feature an extended staff presentation of what is being proposed in the draft Articles 3, 4, and 5, followed by questions and discussions among Council members.
Following adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan in May 2000, the Town Council began a process to revise Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance. A first draft was prepared in the spring of 2001, reviewed by citizens and Advisory Boards, and considered at a Public Hearing in June. A second draft was prepared over the summer of 2001, and reviewed again by citizens and advisory boards. A Public Hearing on the second draft was held in September. In October, the Council decided to invest additional time in review of the draft.
A workshop was conducted on January 11, 2002, attended by approximately 50 citizens, advisory board members, designers, developers, and staff, to examine how proposed provisions of this second draft would affect the form of new development. On January 14, the Council decided that additional workshop opportunities would be desirable, and that work sessions for the Town Council would be helpful. The current schedule calls for a Public Hearing on June 3 for the Council to hear public comments on the Second Draft, in anticipation of a June 10 decision on what direction to give to the consultant in preparation of a Third Draft. A Public Hearing has been called for Wednesday, September 18, 2002, to take public comments on a Third Draft.
TONIGHT’S PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
A Presentation Outline is attached. For each topic, we will introduce key ideas and proposals, and offer observations about possible implications of the changes that are being proposed in this Second Draft. We will highlight policy choices that need to be made. Please note that, for each section in the attached outline, there is an item called “Options” - - These highlight the areas that we believe represent decision points for the Council.
Copies of the Second Draft are available for review at the Chapel Hill Planning Department, the Chapel Hill Town Clerk’s Office, and the Chapel Hill Public Library. A copy is also posted on the Town’s website, available at the following address (can be downloaded in sections):
http://www.townofchapelhill.org/planning/development/ordinance.htm
We believe that the key issues for emphasis tonight include:
NEXT STEPS
Our intention is to compile comments from the Council’s discussions from March 18, along with comments tonight and comments to be made on May 20, along with citizen comments made at various forum events, and prepare a list of possible revisions that would address the comments. Where several alternative approaches have been discussed as options, we will note those. We will have this compilation and list of possible revisions prepared and ready for consideration at the June 3 Public Hearing.
At the conclusion of the three evenings of Council presentation and discussion, the three Citizen Forums, and the two Citizen Workshops, we believe that the Council and the community will be in a position to make policy choices and give direction to the Town’s consultant for revisions and preparation of a Third Draft. The current schedule calls for the Council to provide this direction on June 10.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1
Presentation of Proposed Development Ordinance to Town Council
2nd Draft - - Prepared August, 2001
SESSION 2: APRIL 15, 2002
[Continuation of Review of Article 3]
Use Regulations (Sec. 3.7)
A. Concept of Permitted Uses, Accessory Uses, Special Uses unchanged
B. Use Matrix on p. 3-65 is fundamental and defining
C. All Uses listed together; Concept of “use groups” de-emphasized
D. Footnotes to Use Matrix remain highly important
E. Options: Agree to simplify Use Groups; Keep existing array of specialized Land Use Intensity Ratios for different Use Groups
Dimensional Standards (Sec. 3.8)
A. Most Important Section in Development Ordinance
B. Standards Vary by Zoning District
C. Key Factors Regulated in Dimensional Matrix, p 3-73: Minimum Lot Size, Maximum Density, Lot Width and Frontage, Building Height, Setbacks, Impervious Surface Ratios, Floor Area Ratios
D. Key Differences from Existing Ordinance:
· No variations in ratios due to Use Groups
· Livability Space Ratio replaced by Maximum Impervious Surface Ratio
· New concept: Maximum Lot Width
· New concept: Maximum Street Setback
· Reduced setbacks in most situations
· Proposed Floor Area Ratios are significantly higher than existing ratios
· “Rules for Interpretation” accompanying table has key information
· Recreation Area/Space
E. Options: Decide on Appropriate Floor Area Ratios; Consider Impervious Surface limitations; How to address existing impervious surfaces for existing development; Whether/when to require ponds; Whether to set maximum lot width, setbacks.
Incentive Zoning (Sec. 3.9)
A. Bonus Densities awarded for extra Parks/Open Space, and for Redevelopment of Existing Shopping Centers (p 3-77); Note that Retail Site Design Incentive is a leftover item on this page, referring to previous proposals since deleted.
B. Bonuses that would be granted are additional permitted dwelling units and non-residential floor area
C. Options: Accept proposed incentive structure; Delete Incentive concept; Add or delete incentive conditions; Increase or decrease level of incentive intensity
Transfer of Development Rights (Sec. 3.9.2)
A. Explanation of Concept
B. Explanation of Recommendation of Planning Board and Manager to reserve, not include this proposed section of the ordinance
C. Issues Related to Legal Authority to Implement
D. Options: Delete and reserve section; Include section; Further refine circumstances in which in-town density might be acceptably increased if property owner purchases development rights; Consider intergovernmental transfers of density.
Inclusionary Zoning
A. Directly addresses Town Council’s Affordable Housing objectives
B. Major new direction; Note previous correspondence from consultant regarding authority to enact a requirement of this kind
C. Affordable housing or payment-in-lieu would be required for ALL new development, residential AND non-residential, except for small projects
D. New Concept: Equivalent Residential Units
E. Small Projects: No Requirement; Medium Projects: 10% Affordable; Large Projects: 20% Affordable
F. Focus on private homeownership, or rentals with public participation in management
G. Provisions regulating resale, phasing, income limits of purchasers/occupants of affordable units
H. Options: Legal Authority/Issues; Whether to require affordable housing; Whether to require as condition of approval for non-residential development; Sliding scale or flat 15% requirement; Whether/how to allow payments-in-lieu; Whether/how to allow off-site satisfaction of requirement
Article 3 Questions
_______________________________________
ARTICLE 4: PROCEDURES
Concept Plan Review (Sec. 4.3)
A. Proposed change described, with 5 alternative options
B. Options: Decide which variation for Concept Plan Review is most desirable
Procedures are Carried Over Intact from Existing Ordinance (Sec. 4.4 - 4.14):
A. Zoning Amendments
B. Special Use Permits
C. Subdivisions
D. Site Plan Reviews
E. Master Land Use Plan
F. Zoning Compliance Permit
G. Site Specific Development Plans (new)
H. Appeals
I. Variances (includes RCD and Watershed standards for variances)
J. Violation and Penalties
Article 4 Questions
_______________________________________
ARTICLE 5: DESIGN STANDARDS
(Note: In most copies of the Second Draft that were distributed, there was a page-numbering problem. The numbers at the bottom of each page in Article 5 are incorrect. We apologize for this inconvenience.)
Link to Design Manual (Sec. 5.1.3)
Subdivision Lot Layout Standards (Sec. 5.2) - - No change
Environmental Standards (Sec. 5.3) - - New Section, combining previously specified standards
Stormwater Management (Sec. 5.4) - - Increased requirements
A. Link to Design Manual
B. ALL development applications, other than for SF/2-family, would need:
· Stormwater Management Concept Plan
· Design Calculations
· Maintenance Agreement
· Performance Bond (to assure satisfactory construction)
· Provisions for Waiver of these Requirements (Sec. 5.4.5)
· Treat the first inch of precipitation
· Remove 85% of Total Suspended Solids
· Hold water for 2-5 days
· Control for the 1 and 50 year storms
Parks and Open Space (Sec. 5.5)
A. Minimum Recreation Area Requirements
B. Suitability of Recreation Area
Landscaping (Sec. 5.6)
Tree Protection (Sec. 5.7)
Tree Ordinance carried over intact from existing Ordinance
Access and Circulation (Sec. 5.8)
Parking (Sec. 5.9)
Disability Standards (Sec, 5.10) - - No change
Lighting Standards (Sec. 5.11) - - New
Utilities (Sec. 5.12) - - No change
Solid Waste and Recycling (Sec. 5.13) - - No change
Signs (Sec. 5.14) - - Minor changes
Performance Standards During Construction (Sec. 5.15) - - New
Article 5 Questions
ATTACHMENT 2
Review of Material Covered on March 18, 2002
I. Review of Initiative to Revise Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance
A. Starting Point - Comprehensive Plan
B. Chronology - May 2000 to Present
C. Schedule of Briefings (handout)
D. Format for Tonight’s Presentation
E. Options: Stay with schedule; Adjust schedule
II. Organization of Ordinance
A. Objectives of Organization for New Development Ordinance
B. Comparison of Existing to Proposed Organization
C. Development Ordinance vs. Design Manual
D. Options: Stay with existing organization; Go with proposed; Alter proposed
III. Review of Article 1: General Provisions
A. Statutory links
B. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan
IV. Deferral of Article 2: Use Patterns
A. Definition of a Use Pattern
B. Why Use Patterns are Proposed for Deferral
C. Options: Defer as Proposed; Study and Calibrate Now; Eliminate
V. Review of Article 3: Zoning Districts
General Use Districts
A. Most Existing Zoning Districts Remain the Same; Standards Proposed to Change
B. Changes to Town Center Districts and Mixed Use Districts; Office-Institutional-4 remains unchanged; Two new districts added
C. Town Center Districts
1. Design standards added - - proposed as requirements, not guidelines
2. Procedural Incentives are offered as alternatives
3. Options: Leave standards or remove to Design Manual; Include or delete procedural incentives
D. Mixed Use District (REPLACEMENT)
1. New Zone to replace current Mixed Use-R-1 and Mixed Use OI-1
2. Land Currently Zoned Mixed Use-R-1 and Mixed Use OI-1 may need to be rezoned if this change is made
3. New Design Standards (Note: references to Article 2 will need adjustment)
4. Note reference to Connectivity Ratio on p. 3-12
5. Note reference to Transfer of Development Rights on P. 3-14
6. Dimensional Matrix on p. 3-14 is key
7. Options: Require Residential? Allow Higher Ratios for Impervious Surface in a Mixed Use Zone? Specify Maximum Setbacks? Eliminate Minimum Setbacks? Raise Allowable Building Height? Reduce Parking Requirements? Require Bus Stops? How to treat existing uses that would become nonconforming?
E. Office/Institutional-4 District
1. No Changes Proposed
2. Options: Leave as adopted in October, 2001; Re-open discussions
F. Traditional Neighborhood Development District (NEW)
1. New District, with objective of having special standards unique to this district
2. References to regulations are to the TND Use Pattern in Article 2
3. Options: Defer incorporating until Use Pattern is adopted; Eliminate concept
G. Transit-Oriented Development District (NEW)
1. New District, to work in tandem with transit and major bus boarding areas
2. Reference to Transfer of Development Rights on p. 3-25
3. No standards specified; If rezoning to a Transit-Oriented Development District is proposed, development standards must be proposed at that time.
4. Options: Keep as a place-holder; Eliminate concept
Overlay Districts
A. Concept: Additional regulations beyond those associated with underlying zoning
B. Airport Hazard: No Change Proposed
C. Historic Districts
1. Changes Proposed:
· Lengthen time for Commission to act on applications from 60 to 180 days
· Non-conforming structures, if demolished or destroyed, could be rebuilt
2. Options: Incorporate changes proposed in draft Historic District Commission
D. Resource Conservation District
1. Proposed Changes would be More Restrictive
2. Changes Proposed:
· Establish 3 segments with required buffers
· More stringent standards, use restrictions in segments closest to stream
· Allow streets and/or bridges in the RCD only with a variance
· Pavement width of streets in RCD must be no wider than 24 feet
· No curb/gutter and no sidewalks permitted in RCD
3. Options: Require that RCD always include land within at least 100 feet from stream bank (current and proposed allows for 75 feet in some circumstances); Consider allowing streets/bridges without a variance, if need is demonstrated; Allow sidewalks, curb/gutter within RCD
E. Watershed Protection District
1. Combines existing Water Quality and Watershed Protection Districts
2. Changes Proposed:
· Note that Proposed Watershed Protection District is coterminous with existing Watershed Protection District, which is larger than predecessor Water Quality Protection District
· Use Restrictions in Water Quality District are addressed through underlying zoning and general Development Ordinance Standards: No toxic or hazardous material recycling or disposal; No underground fuel or chemical storage tanks; No privately owned discharging wastewater treatment facilities
3. Options: Accept proposal to combine; Continue to Keep Water Quality District as separate overlay in the Ordinance
F. Neighborhood Conservation District (NEW)
1. Description of Objectives, Concept, Process
2. High Levels of Interest; Implications: Higher level of regulation, complexity
3. Options: Create District; Eliminate Concept; Adjust Threshold for petition; Make approval process for applications in a district more or less rigorous